OCCUPY WALL STREET

[AtLast]

I absolutely disagree with what has been going on in terms of peaceful assembly and the use of tear gas, etc. to disperse them.

I have to speqk up about the fact that not all OWS demonstrators have been non-violent. Although, the case in SF wherein a woman slashed 2 officers (one in the face) with an exacto knife (which she stole from an artist showing at a street art fair nearby) was not peaceful assembly. Now, it looks like she and the guy she was with were hanging out at the SF encampment and not really OWS people. Most of the attacks on police with bottles, etc. all over the US have been done by anarchist groups or people just there to party. They do not represent the core of OWS demonstrators at all.

This always happens and I do think the cops need to protect themselves. This is a complex set of circumstances. Many of the OWS folks have let the homeless and other groups share space simply due to feeling the pain of disenfranchised people. The non-violent OWS folks are not at fault for a few lashing out at police, but, I just can't sit back and say it has all been peaceful or that police have some things to worry about. How do they know who is safe and not going to strike-out?

In no way do I support what happened at UCD- and I think that the Admin and the campus police department is at fault for failing to train officers for these kinds of protests. Also, I do think there were rogue officers involved that would act that way no matter what.

I sure don't put the actions of a very few "outsiders" that have been violent on the movement as a whole. But, there have been incidences of people attacking officers. This is where I think "knowing" the population is really important and that the first thing that happens should be communication between the campus police chief and demonstrators that can speak to what is planned and who might not be really part of the protest.

The UCD police officers were wrong and I hope prosecuted outside of the university in criminal court. Those students were not posing any kind of physical threat. But other people have. Not many, but it has gone on.

[atomiczombie]

National Day of Action to Stop (and Reverse) Foreclosures

December 6 will be a big day of action for the Occupy Wall Street movement. #OWS will join the struggle of families and communities that have been on the front lines of a struggle for economic justice. We will stand in solidarity and ask our fellow occupations to join us for a national day of action on the foreclosure crisis. We are fighting Wall Street's reach on every block, every farm, every house in America with sit-ins at foreclosed properties to right this moral injustice.

The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few.

Nowhere is this disparity of wealth and power more evident than in the struggle to secure the human right to housing.

In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream, millions of people have lost their homes or fear that they soon will because of the foreclosure crisis. Wall Street created this crisis with lies and greed. And Washington, instead of investigating Wall Street and banks, is cutting back room deals to let bankers escape justice for their crimes.

Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. They destroyed our economy, kicked tens of thousands of people illegally out of their homes, and are now using a small fraction of the money they stole to buy off politicians and settle for far less than they owe.

More information to come.

Contact: occupyourhomes@gmail.com
On Twitter: @OccupyOurHomes
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/events/304693926222145/

LINK: http://occupywallst.org/article/dece...eet-goes-home/

[SoNotHer]

I'm happy to know 12/6 :-)

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

LINK: http://occupywallst.org/article/dece...eet-goes-home/

[Diavolo]

My business puts me smack in the middle of the foreclosure debacle. And I've seen it all. Seriously. All. I've been beating a drum on the subject, but it falls on deaf ears. Here's a link to a particularly bad man who still doesn't get it.

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/baum-...ose-2011-11-22

He blames a NYT columnist for the failure of his law firm. The truth is is firm was doomed to fail because of it's depraved corporate culture. The NYT columnist was just the means to the end.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Diavolo

My business puts me smack in the middle of the foreclosure debacle. And I've seen it all. Seriously. All. I've been beating a drum on the subject, but it falls on deaf ears. Here's a link to a particularly bad man who still doesn't get it.

http://www.dsnews.com/articles/baum-...ose-2011-11-22

He blames a NYT columnist for the failure of his law firm. The truth is is firm was doomed to fail because of it's depraved corporate culture. The NYT columnist was just the means to the end.

I remember seeing those disgusting Halloween office party pictures a couple weeks ago on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I have no sympathy for this guy.

[SoNotHer]

MYTH #1: The congressional Super Committee failed because both sides refuse to compromise.


REALITY: The Super Committee failed because Republicans’ number one, non-negotiable priority is to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying even one more penny in taxes.1 Democrats repeatedly offered deep spending cuts (far deeper than most progressives would like) in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes, only to be refused again and again.2 So even though the vast majority of Americans say they want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and raise taxes on the rich and corporations,3 that won’t happen until Republicans put aside their extremist stance.


MYTH #2: Nobody knows what Occupy Wall Street is about.


REALITY: Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.4


MYTH #3: Occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.


REALITY: As anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings.5 And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.6


MYTH #4: Occupy Wall Street is intent on provoking violence, especially against banks and the police.


REALITY: Occupations across the country have committed themselves to nonviolent protest, in the greatest traditions of protest movements. Some of their protests have been met with acts of police violence–tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets7–but in many cases, protesters have reminded police that the police are part of the 99%, too.8 And in the few cases when people have shown up at occupations and committed acts of vandalism, other protesters have even repaired their acts of vandalism.9


MYTH #5: The biggest crisis facing our country is out of control government spending.


REALITY: The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts.10 We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 191711–pay their fair share.

[Diavolo]

Ever cook something jalapenos in it and accidentally get it in your eye? Or your nose? Scoville index on a jalapeno is max 8000. Police grade pepper spray? In excess of 2million heat units.

http://www.eatmorechiles.com/Scoville_Heat.html

I loves me some heat, but not 250 times the heat of a jalapeno sprayed in my face.

[mustangjeano]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

MYTH #1: The congressional Super Committee failed because both sides refuse to compromise.


REALITY: The Super Committee failed because Republicans’ number one, non-negotiable priority is to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying even one more penny in taxes.1 Democrats repeatedly offered deep spending cuts (far deeper than most progressives would like) in exchange for raising taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes, only to be refused again and again.2 So even though the vast majority of Americans say they want to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, and raise taxes on the rich and corporations,3 that won’t happen until Republicans put aside their extremist stance.


MYTH #2: Nobody knows what Occupy Wall Street is about.


REALITY: Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.4


MYTH #3: Occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.


REALITY: As anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings.5 And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.6


MYTH #4: Occupy Wall Street is intent on provoking violence, especially against banks and the police.


REALITY: Occupations across the country have committed themselves to nonviolent protest, in the greatest traditions of protest movements. Some of their protests have been met with acts of police violence–tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets7–but in many cases, protesters have reminded police that the police are part of the 99%, too.8 And in the few cases when people have shown up at occupations and committed acts of vandalism, other protesters have even repaired their acts of vandalism.9


MYTH #5: The biggest crisis facing our country is out of control government spending.


REALITY: The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts.10 We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 191711–pay their fair share.

Very well put. Thank you

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by AtLast

I have to speqk up about the fact that not all OWS demonstrators have been non-violent. Although, the case in SF wherein a woman slashed 2 officers (one in the face) with an exacto knife (which she stole from an artist showing at a street art fair nearby) was not peaceful assembly. Now, it looks like she and the guy she was with were hanging out at the SF encampment and not really OWS people. Most of the attacks on police with bottles, etc. all over the US have been done by anarchist groups or people just there to party. They do not represent the core of OWS demonstrators at all.

As someone who is admittedly and openly sceptical about the Occupy movement, this is one of the aspects that I struggle with. On the one hand the Occupy movement tries to portray itself as representing all, or almost all (99%) of society, uses rhetoric and, on occasions, imagery that attracts anarchists and, worse, those with no sense of social responsibility ... and, yet, distances itself from the consequences that result.

The desecration of St Paul's Cathedral here in London is the perfect case in point.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

As someone who is admittedly and openly sceptical about the Occupy movement, this is one of the aspects that I struggle with. On the one hand the Occupy movement tries to portray itself as representing all, or almost all (99%) of society, uses rhetoric and, on occasions, imagery that attracts anarchists and, worse, those with no sense of social responsibility ... and, yet, distances itself from the consequences that result.

The desecration of St Paul's Cathedral here in London is the perfect case in point.

Funny, I think Occupy is calling on the world to be more socially responsible. Social responsibility is really it's core message.

I think it is really important to understand that Occupy is about peaceful protest and non-violence. Any riff-raff elements out there who do cause trouble don't represent Occupy. I don't like it when people look at those few anarchists and trouble makers who show up at peaceful protests and cause trouble, and assume that they represent the protestors. The Occupy movement doesn't actively try to attract anarchists. Anarchists just see an opportunity to make trouble so they show up. Desecration of property is not in any way a goal of or condoned by the Occupy movement.

[SoNotHer]

I'm stealing this from Ruby Woo's post on another page. I hope you all here in the States had a good holiday today. :-)

[Kätzchen]

AZ,
thank you for the nudge about my participation in this forum thread.

I've been very quiet... When I'm quiet, it can mean a number of things but most generally, my being quiet in this instance (OWS, et al) concerns knowing certain people in my region who play instrumental roles, publicly.

When I see them make particular decisions that do not square with my reality, I sit up and take notice and listen with an acuteness to detail. I try to gather as much information as I can - verbal, non-verbal, hidden elements in various fields of interest, so that I am able to gather some sort of meaning that makes sense not only to me, but helps me to understand them better as well. Sometimes I am able to understand better and other times my own trained incapacities limit my ability to see a fuller picture of what is transpiring.

I'm not happy with some of the decisions made by key officials in Portland.

I'm not able to deliberate on those feelings or things I am privy to or what kind of meaning-making I am getting from everything that transpired in our city.

What I can say this morning is more along the lines of a comment and thanks to Diavalo's recent post on organizational culture, I am able to say that Diavalo's observation on key elements in organizational culture illustrate a key principle in Organizational culture: Organizational culture (no matter if the culture we speak about resides in the OWS movement, institutional houses of power, familial, community, workplace or such) mirrors problematics in tangible or intangible ways with respect to how values, decisions or a sharing of goals culminates over time.

Whether an organization succeeds, stumbles and recovers, or fails, we can examine what elements of culture within the company and community it resides in and take note of what elements contributed to success or failure or a stalling of growth necessary to bring all elements together to produce an orchestration of success or failure.

IMO, the most successful organizations resist isomorphic elements and utilize sets of data key in determining the breadth or depth in order to orchestrate and administer successful mission priori.

Thank you for your observation and comments Diavalo.

One thought that has stayed with me since the inception of the OWS movement is that greater care to detail of organizational success might be worth a closer fine-toothed examination for clues on maintaining strength and equilibrium at optimal peak performance to withstand isomorphic tendencies that impale organizational success. A field marshalling of logistical detail.

That's all I've got today and I wish each of you a beautiful holiday weekend,

~D

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Desecration of property is not in any way a goal of or condoned by the Occupy movement.

Who actually speaks for the Occupy movement? Who decides or articulates what its goals actually are? I'm struggling to identify who or what does this.

Desecration of property is certainly what has happened at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Rightly or wrongly, the "Occupy" movement has been perceived by many here in the UK as either participating in or supporting that desecration or, alternatively, standing back passively and enabling it to happen.

As a result, sympathy for the "Occupy" movement has fallen, certainly here in London, in recent weeks as this protest continues directly outside a place of worship.

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Who actually speaks for the Occupy movement? Who decides or articulates what its goals actually are? I'm struggling to identify who or what does this.

Desecration of property is certainly what has happened at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Rightly or wrongly, the "Occupy" movement has been perceived by many here in the UK as either participating in or supporting that desecration or, alternatively, standing back passively and enabling it to happen.

As a result, sympathy for the "Occupy" movement has fallen, certainly here in London, in recent weeks as this protest continues directly outside a place of worship.

They decide by general assembly. The people speaks for OWS and the people make the decisions.

http://occupywallst.org/

"Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society."

[Gráinne]

Still not trying to stir up shit, but what happens if the members of the general assembly disagree? Majority vote? I don't see how that will go on forever before the dissenters will form their own splinter group, because they are not heard. Did that make any sense?

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by guihong

Still not trying to stir up shit, but what happens if the members of the general assembly disagree? Majority vote? I don't see how that will go on forever before the dissenters will form their own splinter group, because they are not heard. Did that make any sense?

They have had that issue. Majority vote wins. When John Lewis wanted to speak at OWS in Atlanta majority vote said no, but for the people that wanted to hear him they agreed on him speaking at the end of the general assembly. He didn't want to wait so he left. They came to a compromise.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by guihong

Still not trying to stir up shit, but what happens if the members of the general assembly disagree? Majority vote? I don't see how that will go on forever before the dissenters will form their own splinter group, because they are not heard. Did that make any sense?

to get a full understanding of how the decision making is done, you might try attending your local Occupy general assembly. they are open to anyone that wants to participate and should you decide to show up and participate in the voting on of anything your vote will be counted. you'll even get an opportunity to be heard just by using a few hand signals. refreshing, actually, how effective...if not a little long.....this process actually is. everyone gets to be heard and all points voiced are discussed and voted on. it's quite fascinating.

[SoNotHer]

I'm wondering how many times we need to delay any kind of social and human progress by continuing to swirl with these kinds of comments which have been abundantly perpetuated, vetted and responded to clearly, succinctly, tactfully and with hope in many other ways besides violence and how long some need to continue to focus on the small exception to the otherwise preponderance of nonviolent, focused and progressive action and thinking that has been taken place.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Who actually speaks for the Occupy movement? Who decides or articulates what its goals actually are? I'm struggling to identify who or what does this.

Desecration of property is certainly what has happened at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Rightly or wrongly, the "Occupy" movement has been perceived by many here in the UK as either participating in or supporting that desecration or, alternatively, standing back passively and enabling it to happen.

As a result, sympathy for the "Occupy" movement has fallen, certainly here in London, in recent weeks as this protest continues directly outside a place of worship.

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

I'm wondering how many times we need to delay any kind of social and human progress by continuing to swirl with these kinds of comments which have been abundantly perpetuated, vetted and responded to clearly, succinctly, tactfully and with hope in many other ways besides violence and how long some need to continue to focus on the small exception to the otherwise preponderance of nonviolent, focused and progressive action and thinking that has been taken place.

All well & good but I walk past St Paul's Cathedral every morning and evening.

That's my closest "real" experience of the "Occupy" movement and, especially very early in the morning when I walk by, I see a lot of rubbish and streams of human waste. The gathering has prevented some acts of worship from taking place and, more generally, tourists are now avoiding the historic site. I cannot blame them - I would too.

So for me it ain't about these kinds of comments which have been abundantly perpetuated, vetted and responded to clearly, succinctly, tactfully , rather it's about what I see and experience 5 days of the week and it ain't positive. In fact, the opposite when London's already stretched police resources have to deal with the crowd control and petty crime that this has attracted.

Apologies if my personal experience isn't to everyone's liking or if it's viewed as biased (which it undoubtedly is but you got the diplomatic version) but that's how I call it.

[atomiczombie]

The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality


Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 November 2011 12.25 EST
Article history

US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.

Right on Naomi Wolf.

LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cupy?fb=optOut